Westminster

Westminster has bent its collective knee in cooing supplication to Larry, Downing Street’s new cat. The slinky feline is already three times more famous than Mrs Bercow – no crude double-entendres please. Meanwhile, Politics Home has been sent a photograph of a van in Smith Square.

Yesterday, parliament asserted its supremacy before the European Court of Human Rights. As Ross Clark explains, it has been a long time coming. The Final Indignity, 10th November 2001 by Ross Clark It wasn’t so long ago that the very mention of the words ‘European Convention on Human Rights’ in conservative circles was enough to provoke frothing at the mouth. Of all the horrors to emanate from the Continent, here was the final humiliation: British ministers ordered around by the bigwigs of European justice. No longer would we be able to beat our children or tell them that they can’t wear earrings and Motorhead T-shirts to their Latin lessons. Murderers,

Twitter has exploded at the news that former Labour MP Jim Devine has been found guilty on two counts of false accounting, and is likely follow to David Chaytor to the slammer – another argument against votes for lags. Sentence will be passed in four weeks As James Kirkup wrote at the time of Chaytor’s sentencing, this is a victory for the British justice system; proof that those who make our laws and subject to them also. The purge on the most heinous expenses cheats is a painful but necessary passage for restoring dignity to parliament and probity to public life. And the process is far from over. News of

For once, I am in total agreement with Nigel Farage: the best way for Sally Bercow to help her husband is to take a vow of silence. Her recent Cleopatra act diverted attention from the persistent indignity of parliament’s relationship with IPSA, but it has done little to raise the diminutive Speaker’s diminutive reputation.   Flushed with embarrassment, Mrs Bercow spent most of Friday afternoon insisting that the Evening Standard had distorted her. She went into yummy mummy mode, confiding to Twitter that she was baking cakes for her son’s lunch box – nice rather than naughty. She gave no immediate explanation for posing in a sheet; but who doesn’t loiter semi-naked at the

I wish I could tell you that the main topic of conversation in Westminster today is Egypt and the future of the Middle East. But it isn’t. It is those Sally Bercow photos.  But if it wasn’t the picture of the Speaker’s wife naked but for a sheet that MPs were talking about it would be IPSA, the expenses body, following the publication of their claims for September and October. MPs detest IPSA. They believe, with good reason, it to be arrogant and inefficient. So strong is MPs’ opinion on this front, that David Cameron told Tory MPs late last year that if IPSA hadn’t sorted itself out by April,

The Liberal Democrats’ current problems can be traced back to 28 October 1943. The Liberal Democrats’ current problems can be traced back to 28 October 1943. On that day, the House of Commons decided that the bombed Commons chamber should be rebuilt and its oblong structure preserved. This ensured that the British tradition of confrontational politics — and with it the pull towards a two-party system — would continue into the post-war era. Winston Churchill understood what was at stake in the debate. He knew that ‘we shape our buildings, and our buildings shape us’. As he told the House, the chamber’s shape ‘is a very potent factor in our

Guido and Benedict Brogan have already drawn attention to Paul Waugh’s latest post. But a story this good deserves repeating, at length: “Tory MP Mark Pritchard is not one to swear. In fact he’s ribbed by colleagues in the Tea Room for saying “Schmidt” instead of sh*t. But today, he exploded when the Commons Speaker confronted him over an alleged breach of the courtesies of the House. It all started when Pritchard got to his feet towards the end of Business Questions. As he rose, the Tory backbencher was told by John Bercow that as he was not present for the beginning of Sir George Young’s business statement, he could

Britain is avowedly eurosceptic. But euroscepticism is not homogeneous; there are different tones of disgust. Many decry further political integration; others oppose Europe’s penchant for protectionism; some are wary of the EU’s apparent collective socialism; a few are essentially pro-European but believe too much sovereignty has been ceded; others hope to redefine Britain’s cultural and political relationship with the Continent, as a bridge between the Old World and the Anglosphere; most see Brussels as an affront to elective democracy; and a handful just want out and vote UKIP. So it has always been – perhaps one reason why William Hague’s ‘ticking time-bomb’ has not yet exploded. Time passes and Britain

The foreword to IPSA’s latest consultation document is certainly more conciliatory than combative. “The last eight months have been demanding, both for MPs and their staff, and for IPSA,” it starts – in subtle reference to the mutual frustrations that have overtaken the expenses operation to date – before asking whether the current system can be made more “fair and workable”. And that tone carries across into the main body of the text. Although IPSA insist that nothing has been decided yet, they do at least moot the possibility of raising certain allowances back up again. As James Kirkup writes on his Telegraph blog, this document is, in some respects,

Political Betting carries this table on the breakdown of the tuition fees vote. English Lib Dems were noticeably more loyal than their Celtic counter-parts (only 16 of 43 voted against the bill), which reflects the left-wing political focus in those regions and perhaps the divide in the Liberal Democrat party itself. But, clearly, the West Lothian question is at issue here. Personally, I’m swayed by the argument that the new fees arrangement will affect applications to Scottish universities and therefore it is the business of Scottish MPs. That higher education was devolved in the first place is another, more interesting debating point. The comments section is yours…

It may take another week to discover if Phil Woolas has the right to challenge the election court ruling that destroyed his career. To the delight of his cadre of supporters in the House, judges have said there are “difficult questions to resolve” – not about the evidence of Woolas’ campaign making “false statements”, but about the specific application of the Representation of the People Act (RPA). Before the last die is cast, here are two quick contextual points. First, it is not just Harriet Harman who is keen to shut down this episode – many folks on all sides of the House of Commons would like to pretend skulduggery